The Supreme Court’s Secrecy Problem Runs Deep

The recent testimony of Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett before Congress highlighted a pressing concern: the Supreme Court’s inability to police itself on ethics issues. While the court seeks a $14 million budget increase for security measures, lawmakers should seize this opportunity to create a robust inspection office that can tackle the justices’ recusal responsibilities, assess gifts received by the court, and address other ethics concerns.

The complexity of the court’s situation is evident in its handling of last year’s Dobbs leak. The marshal’s office was tasked with investigating the leak but lacked the expertise and experience to conduct such an investigation. As a result, the report proposed tweaks to IT procedures without finding the source of the leak. This outcome was predictable given the marshal’s limited role in conducting investigations.

The Supreme Court’s security problem is real. Threats against the justices have increased significantly since the Dobbs draft opinion was leaked, with protesters showing up at their homes and an Alaska man sending graphic threats through the court’s website. The Congress-passed Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022 allowed for 24/7 protection to be provided by the marshal’s office, but it appears this has not been enough.

Conservative legal group founder Mike Davis suggested that protests outside Barrett’s home triggered a “Mother Hen” instinct leading her to rule against the administration in a birthright citizenship case. Alternatively, he claimed she simply lied about her judicial philosophy during confirmation. Davis’ comments highlight an important point: the court has both security and ethics problems.

The absence of an inspector general’s office within the federal courts is striking. In other branches of government, these offices are responsible for addressing broad management issues, conducting investigations, and ensuring taxpayer funds are used properly. The Supreme Court’s reliance on a private consulting firm like the Chertoff Group to review security protocols raises questions about its transparency.

During the hearing, Kagan and Barrett touched on the possibility of an enforceable code of ethics and inspector general office. Barrett described these reforms as “complex” and “tricky,” but what is complex here is not the implementation of such measures but rather the court’s failure to acknowledge its own shortcomings.

The Senate has a chance to do more than just boost the court’s budget; it should create an inspection office that can hold the court accountable for ethics issues, ensure transparency in security measures, and provide better protection for the justices. Anything less would be a missed opportunity to address the root causes of the court’s problems rather than just treating symptoms.

The Supreme Court is not immune from criticism or accountability. Its secrecy problem runs deep, and addressing it requires more than just platitudes about ethics reform. The Senate must take concrete steps to ensure that the court can police itself effectively and maintain public trust in its decisions.

The hearing highlighted a stark reality: the Supreme Court’s problems are not confined to security issues but also extend to ethics concerns. The creation of an inspection office would be a significant step towards addressing these issues, but it requires more than just words from the justices – it demands action, transparency, and accountability, values that seem to be in short supply at the highest court in the land.

The Senate’s decision on this matter will set a precedent for future Supreme Court decisions on ethics and security. Will they choose to address these issues head-on or continue to sweep them under the rug? The answer will have far-reaching implications for the integrity of the judicial branch and the public’s trust in it.